Changing Face of Bears Defensive Line

[o-pus #40 in B major]

I'm inclined to believe that the Bears decision to release him was not influenced by Attaouchu's union duties.

Why be a team that picks a fight with the NFLPA? Poles doesn't need that kind of headache and I don't think GMC is looking for that problem either.

[Bearfacts]

I think I can say with complete certainty that Attaouchu's release had nothing to do with his union involvement. Just making an educated guess, it had to do with:
1 - him only ever playing OLB in a 3-4
2 - the Bears waiting until he was healthy so they didn't have to release him with an injury designation

Sounds to me like the most correct interpretation.

I don't honestly believe a players union involvement has much if anything to do with a trade or his release. The players have a union. Teams deal with the union collectively and vice versa. The two battle, they negotiate, the agree, they all sign a new CBA and then go back to making $$$ by the wheel barrow load. Each team has two union reps. If one leaves he'll be replaced. It's the way of life.

[RichH55]

I think I can say with complete certainty that Attaouchu's release had nothing to do with his union involvement. Just making an educated guess, it had to do with:
1 - him only ever playing OLB in a 3-4
2 - the Bears waiting until he was healthy so they didn't have to release him with an injury designation

Sounds to me like the most correct interpretation.

I don't honestly believe a players union involvement has much if anything to do with a trade or his release. The players have a union. Teams deal with the union collectively and vice versa. The two battle, they negotiate, the agree, they all sign a new CBA and then go back to making $$$ by the wheel barrow load. Each team has two union reps. If one leaves he'll be replaced. It's the way of life.

Yep the injury designation stuff was key IMHO

[Yogi da Bear]

I suppose if you reject the premise that we're rebuilding, then nothing else really will line up. That's poppycock IMO, but I think I understand your POV better.

Everyone in the world knows we're rebuilding though. Every local writer, every national writer. The Mack move made that abundantly clear. Clearing our cap to be players in next years offseason - that's a rebuild move. We traded Mack for a 2nd round pick, that's a rebuild move. We traded back multiple times in the draft to accumulate picks also. We want to "build through the draft". Poles clearly loves draft picks and values them highly. But choosing to wait two months before signing 2 of our free agents, even if it means missing out on them and having to choose someone else, in order to ensure we got a 3rd round pick is heresy?

Yea, I've completely flipped sides on this one. I used to not care about comp picks, but there's nothing assumption based about how Moriarty laid this out. 2 of those 5 signings cost us a 3rd round pick. It doesn't matter which ones you want to pick - if you love Pringle then by all means keep him and pick two others. But two of them cost us a 3rd, that's just how it worked out - no assumptions required that's just math.

It's a semantical exercise in some respects. Any time team gets a new GM there is change going on with coaches and scheme, and sure generically it is "rebuilding". But the term "rebuilding" as used here is a bit different. I believe it was meant in the sense of a more historically used version that absolutely implied not expecting to win. It means a purge of vets even useful ones, and going young - and not caring if you lose because of it. Maybe even losing on purpose (shhh). It has been used above here to imply that getting a draft pick is more important than multiple players who can play and win this year, and the GM failed on an important rebuild move. If it was the case that the team was tanking on purpose, it would be fine - but that's not what the Bears are doing. Poles deliberately picked picked players he feels have a chip on their shoulder, who he feels can compete and win now. These aren't all intended to be stopgaps.

On the draft stuff I'm sorry but everyone always calls for GMs to trade down and get more picks. That's always a respected approach and Poles did it to improve depth and competition and succeeded in getting a number of players that can start & be competitive now. That can't be spun into a rebuilding narrative.

Personally, I consider the use of the term rebuilding by media and other public sources to be quite lazy and context free in terms of what Poles is doing. They only care that the readers will recognize the names and they'll resonate and get people's heads nodding... "well, yes - they must be rebuilding if they're getting rid of all those probowlers" and "oh no - they didn't sign Christian Kirk for stupid money... now they have nobody to catch the ball!". But having people agree & repeat doesn't make it remotely true. IMO the TRUTH is Mack in the context of his contract was an albatross - the guy hasn't been THE Khalil Mack for a few years. Same with Hicks. Same with Danny T. Same with Goldman. Same with Jimmy G. Same with ARob. There are more.

Reality is, having any of those guys around would be an impediment to installing the new schemes and HITS. An impediment to winning. So Poles replaced them with guys who can are going to compete & play vs being penciled in as starters without having to earn it ala McNagy. That's not rebuilding - that's just plain installing a better football program. Upgrading.

Ummmm:



I said it at the time, and I'll say it again now, "Getting rid of Mack was FUCKING STUPID!" And that rush was from a three point stance. I would have loved to see Mack and Quinn as DEs in our 4-3. Friggin' scary.

[IE]

IMO the TRUTH is Mack in the context of his contract was an albatross - the guy hasn't been THE Khalil Mack for a few years.

Ummmm:



I said it at the time, and I'll say it again now, "Getting rid of Mack was FUCKING STUPID!" And that rush was from a three point stance. I would have loved to see Mack and Quinn as DEs in our 4-3. Friggin' scary.

OK so the guy can flip Tristan Wirfs with one arm - he's a powerful guy. He actually does do that a time or two per game when he's playing. It just hasn't shown up for the Bears with any reasonable consistency in years.

I mean seriously - are you going to post a vid of every sack he gets and pretend he does that every play? It isn't speculation or conjecture to say that Mack has been a disappointment the last several years. It is easily shown - ESPECIALLY if you look at it with regards to what he cost. Just look at his effing stats & how far they fell off since '18. And even THEN in '18 they were down from his Raiders years. It is not just that his salary was absurd and production way down - but also if you still pine for him that absolutely means you don't want Brisker as a Bear (who might have been one of the biggest steals of the draft). And you're saying you want $20+MM of next year's FA dollars evaporate. Is that what you're asking for here?

[thunderspirit]

I said it at the time, and I'll say it again now, "Getting rid of Mack was FUCKING STUPID!"

You did say that.
I disagreed then, and I'll disagree now.

[wab]

Bears fans should probably stop getting emotionally attached to aging players who underperform as long as Poles and Flus are around. No matter what the name says on the back of the jersey.

[The Marshall Plan]

You can’t take one play from TC and extrapolate that as Poles fucked up.

Ok this topic, wake me up in October or November after Mack has disappeared from three games because he’s playing hurt or he’s not playing at all because he’s hurt.

All at the low low price of $20M per year.

Don’t get me wrong. I liked Mack. I even have the rookie card and he had a magical season for us in 2018 but he’s on the downside based on the past couple years.

[artbest01]

By and large, Poles has been lauded for making the call to trade Mack. Mack's value isn't going to be any higher after this season, at age 32, regardless of his productivity. He (also) hasn't been fully healthy since the 2018 Miami. game.

[Moriarty]

Trading him was the right thing to do. This team isn't contending any time soon.

However, that doesn't mean "he can't play any more/he won't be missed" is true.

[dplank]

Mack is no longer on the Bears, so I really don't care what he does anymore. Moving him seemed like the right move in light of a rebuild concept. I actually don't care about clearing that cap space that much, it looks like we are going to have more cap than we can actually spend anyways. For me it was about getting the picks, one of which landed Brisker who will play for us for years to come.

No reason not to pay Roquan FFS, get it done. You can't take cap space to the grave with you, you need to spend it somewhere and options are not fruitful. The best option is right under your nose - Roquan. He would be the #1 ranked FA if he were to hit the market, you will always overpay for that type of guy, just get it done and stop dicking around. Other teams are "overpaying" their stars to keep them, Metcalf and Deebo and McLauren most recently. We need to do the same, we have plenty of cap space to do it.

[thunderspirit]

However, that doesn't mean "he can't play any more/he won't be missed" is true.

This is reasonable.

So is saying "he's missed a lot of time with injuries and will likely do so again."

They're not mutually exclusive.

[Yogi da Bear]

Ummmm:



I said it at the time, and I'll say it again now, "Getting rid of Mack was FUCKING STUPID!" And that rush was from a three point stance. I would have loved to see Mack and Quinn as DEs in our 4-3. Friggin' scary.

OK so the guy can flip Tristan Wirfs with one arm - he's a powerful guy. He actually does do that a time or two per game when he's playing. It just hasn't shown up for the Bears with any reasonable consistency in years.

I mean seriously - are you going to post a vid of every sack he gets and pretend he does that every play? It isn't speculation or conjecture to say that Mack has been a disappointment the last several years. It is easily shown - ESPECIALLY if you look at it with regards to what he cost. Just look at his effing stats & how far they fell off since '18. And even THEN in '18 they were down from his Raiders years. It is not just that his salary was absurd and production way down - but also if you still pine for him that absolutely means you don't want Brisker as a Bear (who might have been one of the biggest steals of the draft). And you're saying you want $20+MM of next year's FA dollars evaporate. Is that what you're asking for here?

Yes, I believe I will post every single sack. Truth is, we sold Mack coming off his worst, injury filled season. His value was at his absolute lowest. In truth though, six sacks in seven games is NOT "his play falling off." He's going to get more than 10 sacks this year, I'm convinced. His value would have been worth far more than it was this past offseason, and we wouldn't have realized the dead cap hit we did this year.

As for Brisker? I love him. But there were other ways we could have got him, if we wanted him bad enough.

[RichH55]

OK so the guy can flip Tristan Wirfs with one arm - he's a powerful guy. He actually does do that a time or two per game when he's playing. It just hasn't shown up for the Bears with any reasonable consistency in years.

I mean seriously - are you going to post a vid of every sack he gets and pretend he does that every play? It isn't speculation or conjecture to say that Mack has been a disappointment the last several years. It is easily shown - ESPECIALLY if you look at it with regards to what he cost. Just look at his effing stats & how far they fell off since '18. And even THEN in '18 they were down from his Raiders years. It is not just that his salary was absurd and production way down - but also if you still pine for him that absolutely means you don't want Brisker as a Bear (who might have been one of the biggest steals of the draft). And you're saying you want $20+MM of next year's FA dollars evaporate. Is that what you're asking for here?

Yes, I believe I will post every single sack. Truth is, we sold Mack coming off his worst, injury filled season. His value was at his absolute lowest. In truth though, six sacks in seven games is NOT "his play falling off." He's going to get more than 10 sacks this year, I'm convinced. His value would have been worth far more than it was this past offseason, and we wouldn't have realized the dead cap hit we did this year.

As for Brisker? I love him. But there were other ways we could have got him, if we wanted him bad enough.

Trading next years 1st? Because that is the "bad enough" scenario.

It's foolish.

1 play in TC highlights - thats a new low

[Grizzled]

On the plus side, Justin Jones is making an impression at 3T. He's playing with a lot of intensity (as much as one can in camp) and showing he knows where to be on plays.

[IE]

On the plus side, Justin Jones is making an impression at 3T. He's playing with a lot of intensity (as much as one can in camp) and showing he knows where to be on plays.

He made a big impression on me in the first video I saw of him coming into Halas Hall for the first time...seemed genuinely in awe & excited to be on the Bears. Made me want to root for him in general, and considering how important his role is that's good. I think Justin Jones is going to be a pleasant surprise this year. I think we can only expect him to play 12-13 games though and hope a guy like Edwards also surprises in being able to play the 3T pretty well. Who else is there? Blackson I guess. Can Kamara play 3T?

I know how important that role is for the system & aren't suggesting the depth are starter-worthy at the position. We already sort of know that is the top priority in the next draft. But can one or more of these other guys hold down the fort for JJ if he has to miss a few games (which he always does)?

[dplank]

I have really high hopes with Edwards, that dude has flashed major big play potential since he got here. He just needs to stay on the field, between suspension stuff and injuries he hasn't played enough. Blackson I think starts at the other T position, he's a stout player inside and I suspect he and Tonga hold down that spot.

[wab]

Tonga has been with the 1's IIRC. Blackson has been playing a lot of 3T in a rotation.

I have read literally zero about how Edwards has looked.

[dplank]

Maybe they see Edwards as an end? Interesting to see Blackson at 3T, didn't think he had the pass rush element to thrive there and Jones will get most of the snaps anyways.

[wab]

Maybe they see Edwards as an end? Interesting to see Blackson at 3T, didn't think he had the pass rush element to thrive there and Jones will get most of the snaps anyways.

Like you I have high hopes with Edwards as a 3T. His measurables really seem to translate well to the position.

Apparently Dominique Robinson has been turning a ton of heads at DE. The DL has some low key interesting battles.

[artbest01]

I don't believe it works that way. Mack's value in a trade isn't solely dependent upon his most recent season - it's myriad factors, primarily injury and (especially) age. Mack will be 32 heading into the 2023 season. Even with a double digit sack season, his value would have been less than it was when Poles traded him. Teams aren't going to give up as much (let alone more) as the Chargers did for a 32 year old pass rusher.

OK so the guy can flip Tristan Wirfs with one arm - he's a powerful guy. He actually does do that a time or two per game when he's playing. It just hasn't shown up for the Bears with any reasonable consistency in years.

I mean seriously - are you going to post a vid of every sack he gets and pretend he does that every play? It isn't speculation or conjecture to say that Mack has been a disappointment the last several years. It is easily shown - ESPECIALLY if you look at it with regards to what he cost. Just look at his effing stats & how far they fell off since '18. And even THEN in '18 they were down from his Raiders years. It is not just that his salary was absurd and production way down - but also if you still pine for him that absolutely means you don't want Brisker as a Bear (who might have been one of the biggest steals of the draft). And you're saying you want $20+MM of next year's FA dollars evaporate. Is that what you're asking for here?

Yes, I believe I will post every single sack. Truth is, we sold Mack coming off his worst, injury filled season. His value was at his absolute lowest. In truth though, six sacks in seven games is NOT "his play falling off." He's going to get more than 10 sacks this year, I'm convinced. His value would have been worth far more than it was this past offseason, and we wouldn't have realized the dead cap hit we did this year.

As for Brisker? I love him. But there were other ways we could have got him, if we wanted him bad enough.

[RichH55]

On the plus side, Justin Jones is making an impression at 3T. He's playing with a lot of intensity (as much as one can in camp) and showing he knows where to be on plays.

Great to hear - anything for me to read on this? I really liked the Jones signing because I liked him coming out of college

[Arkansasbear]

Bears fans should probably stop getting emotionally attached to aging players who underperform as long as Poles and Flus are around. No matter what the name says on the back of the jersey.

"the name on the front is a hell of a lot more important than the name on the back" Herb Brooks 1980 USA Hockey coach.

[Arkansasbear]

OK so the guy can flip Tristan Wirfs with one arm - he's a powerful guy. He actually does do that a time or two per game when he's playing. It just hasn't shown up for the Bears with any reasonable consistency in years.

I mean seriously - are you going to post a vid of every sack he gets and pretend he does that every play? It isn't speculation or conjecture to say that Mack has been a disappointment the last several years. It is easily shown - ESPECIALLY if you look at it with regards to what he cost. Just look at his effing stats & how far they fell off since '18. And even THEN in '18 they were down from his Raiders years. It is not just that his salary was absurd and production way down - but also if you still pine for him that absolutely means you don't want Brisker as a Bear (who might have been one of the biggest steals of the draft). And you're saying you want $20+MM of next year's FA dollars evaporate. Is that what you're asking for here?

Yes, I believe I will post every single sack. Truth is, we sold Mack coming off his worst, injury filled season. His value was at his absolute lowest. In truth though, six sacks in seven games is NOT "his play falling off." He's going to get more than 10 sacks this year, I'm convinced. His value would have been worth far more than it was this past offseason, and we wouldn't have realized the dead cap hit we did this year.

As for Brisker? I love him. But there were other ways we could have got him, if we wanted him bad enough.

This will be trade I'll give a final value on at season's end.

If Mack stays healthy and finishes with 14+ sacks gets coupled with us missing the playoffs by losing a couple of close games and our pass rush sucking - then I'll find the trade to have been a failure.

If Mack gets hurt, he has horrible number, we finish with 6 or fewer wins, we make the playoffs, or Brisker looks to be a pro bowl caliber player - then the trade was solid.

My reasoning for having the three criteria is this: if he is hurt, has poor numbers we can all agree he wouldn't help us in '22 (assuming you get the same result if he had stayed) and his trade value would be even less. But if he performs well in '22 and the team turns out to be as bad as many national "experts" are calling for, so what?? He helps us win 7 games vs 5? That does nothing but reduce our draft capital and slow down the rebuild process. Plus, what would his trade value be? I agree with you that we traded him at his all time low value, but would a great year increase his value to much more than a second round pick given he is a year older and has one less year of team control? Maybe, but I don't think by much. Maybe you get a 3rd thrown in. But I'd rather have a '22 second round pick vs. a '23 second and third as it will speed up the rebuild process in that Brisker has a year of NFL play under his belt.

[RichH55]

Yes, I believe I will post every single sack. Truth is, we sold Mack coming off his worst, injury filled season. His value was at his absolute lowest. In truth though, six sacks in seven games is NOT "his play falling off." He's going to get more than 10 sacks this year, I'm convinced. His value would have been worth far more than it was this past offseason, and we wouldn't have realized the dead cap hit we did this year.

As for Brisker? I love him. But there were other ways we could have got him, if we wanted him bad enough.

This will be trade I'll give a final value on at season's end.

If Mack stays healthy and finishes with 14+ sacks gets coupled with us missing the playoffs by losing a couple of close games and our pass rush sucking - then I'll find the trade to have been a failure.

If Mack gets hurt, he has horrible number, we finish with 6 or fewer wins, we make the playoffs, or Brisker looks to be a pro bowl caliber player - then the trade was solid.

My reasoning for having the three criteria is this: if he is hurt, has poor numbers we can all agree he wouldn't help us in '22 (assuming you get the same result if he had stayed) and his trade value would be even less. But if he performs well in '22 and the team turns out to be as bad as many national "experts" are calling for, so what?? He helps us win 7 games vs 5? That does nothing but reduce our draft capital and slow down the rebuild process. Plus, what would his trade value be? I agree with you that we traded him at his all time low value, but would a great year increase his value to much more than a second round pick given he is a year older and has one less year of team control? Maybe, but I don't think by much. Maybe you get a 3rd thrown in. But I'd rather have a '22 second round pick vs. a '23 second and third as it will speed up the rebuild process in that Brisker has a year of NFL play under his belt.

Good post Ark

[Grizzled]

On the plus side, Justin Jones is making an impression at 3T. He's playing with a lot of intensity (as much as one can in camp) and showing he knows where to be on plays.

Great to hear - anything for me to read on this? I really liked the Jones signing because I liked him coming out of college

Article in The Athletic this a.m.

[RichH55]

Great to hear - anything for me to read on this? I really liked the Jones signing because I liked him coming out of college

Article in The Athletic this a.m.

On it- thanks!

[Moriarty]

Tonga has been with the 1's IIRC. Blackson has been playing a lot of 3T in a rotation.

I have read literally zero about how Edwards has looked.

Well, if 3T is Jones, Blackson
and NT is Tonga, Pennel

Then Edwards could very well be odd man out.
Or 9th DL, kept solely for versatility.

[IE]

I'm assuming they'll keep 9 including Edwards. Especially given Jones' history of only playing 12-13 games. Plus yeah versatility and him being able to be a 5th DE. They can stash Snowden any any other DE they might like until Quinn is traded.

[Arkansasbear]

I'm assuming they'll keep 9 including Edwards. Especially given Jones' history of only playing 12-13 games. Plus yeah versatility and him being able to be a 5th DE. They can stash Snowden any any other DE they might like until Quinn is traded.

I know it's a long shot, but I'd like to see Robinson, Snowden and Taylor make the final cuts really hard on the front office. It's rebuild time and I'm hoping some younger guys push the vets who are JAG off the roster and then play solid.